Catholic vs Orthodox

[Lucretius]

I became Orthodox precisely because I could no longer in good conscience hold to the Latin teachings concerning the Pope of Rome

Why is that?

as well as the Latin teachings concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

What is false or unnecessary about our understanding of the Trinity?

Christi pax.

 

[Augustine]

Rumblings as early as the 6th century, not unambiguously separate until around the time of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.

Until the Crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople in 1204, the events of 1054 were ignored by the people as an episcopal squabble. But the sacking made the split loud and clear and personal, regrettably cementing the mistrust and coldness between both sides to this day.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Why is that?

What is false or unnecessary about our understanding of the Trinity?

Christi pax.

I don’t know how far I can go into these matters right now due to time limitations.

1. Re the pope, while I recognize, as many Orthodox do, a special status for the Bishop of Rome, I do not believe Christ intended one bishop, even the Bishop of Rome, to be able to single-handedly bind the entire Church to doctrine, or to rule over every diocese across the world as an immediate, ordinary bishop along side the local bishop. Both of these things are decreed by Vatican I.
2. Re the Holy Spirit. I believe, as the Fathers did, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, that is, receives Godhood, from the Father alone, as does the Son. I believe that when the Trinity is divided up by making two Persons, the Father and the Son, together as one entity the eternal Cause and Source of the other Person, the Spirit, that unbalances the Trinity and destroys the monarchy of the Father,

 

[SyroMalankara]

Here’s two questions that I find many converts have no clear answer for:

Why Eastern Orthodox and not Oriental Orthodox, or Church of the East?

Was Eastern Catholicism a consideration, or too tainted by the odor of Rome to be viable?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Here’s two questions that I find many converts have no clear answer for:

Why Eastern Orthodox and not Oriental Orthodox, or Church of the East?

Was Eastern Catholicism a consideration, or too tainted by the odor of Rome to be viable?

1. The Oriental Orthodox, as I’m sure you know, do not acknowledge Chalcedon as authoritative, at least not unequivocally.
2. I attended an Eastern Catholic community for 2-3 years before becoming Orthodox. It was associated with a western Catholic church, held liturgy in the same building at 12 noon on Sundays, except when the Archbishop came to visit the western Sunday masses, on which occasion the Liturgy would not be held, the liturgy frequently featured a photographer from the diocesan newspaper who took copious photographs during the liturgy to showcase it in the newspaper. Since there was a Saturday evening mass, no vespers or confessions could be done on Saturday evening. Most importantly, it became clear to me that, canonically, my participation there meant that I was required to subscribe to the post-schism western dogmatic declarations that I had severe issues with.

 

[Lucretius]

Re the pope, while I recognize, as many Orthodox do, a special status for the Bishop of Rome, I do not believe Christ intended one bishop, even the Bishop of Rome, to be able to single-handedly bind the entire Church to doctrine, or to rule over every diocese across the world as an immediate, ordinary bishop along side the local bishop. Both of these things are decreed by Vatican I.

Any binding that the Pope does is done with his brother bishops and the Church at large, not “single handedly.” There have been two times in history that the Pope has done this, and both times the Pope shifted through the views of a large variety of bishops and theologians before he acted.

Re the Holy Spirit. I believe, as the Fathers did, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, that is, receives Godhood, from the Father alone, as does the Son. I believe that when the Trinity is divided up by making two Persons, the Father and the Son, together as one entity the eternal Cause and Source of the other Person, the Spirit, that unbalances the Trinity and destroys the monarchy of the Father,

The Fathers have taught that that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and this is not understood by Latin Christians (as was made clear in the Council of Florence) to mean that the Father is not the source of all deity.

I can see where you might be coming from regarding the former, but the latter view is almost always based on a misunderstanding of the Latin understanding of the filioque, which isn’t to say that such a misunderstanding is culpable, but nevertheless it is a misunderstanding.

Christi pax.

 

[Wandile]

You may have to drop your Roman spectacles first, but the particular Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves together to be the Orthodox Church, just like the particular Catholic Churches (e.g., Latin, Maronite, Melkite, etc) consider themselves together to be the Catholic Church.

It’s actually a good question as there are Eastern Orthodox and Oriental orthodox

 

[Wandile]

That was the council of Florence, early in the XV century. The Byzantine emperor, John VIII, persuaded the patriarch of Constantinople. Joseph II, to agree with Rome, eager to garner military support from Western Europe against the Turks. Given the situation of extreme duress, it can hardly be said that the Byzantine legates acted freely and consciously. Regardless, led by St. Mark of Ephesus, the only Byzantine legate to refuse to sign the acts of the council, the Byzantine faithful rejected it. And the rest is history…

This downplays the fact that many in the Byzantine party that went to the council very much pro-union… even mark of ephesus…
However things went down sourly when the people rejected the decisions of the Ecumenical council and the bishops betrayed the union. The truth is many held to the faith because of of culture and felt a union with the Catholics would be to betray their nationality.

Councils have never and will never be subject to the approval of the people back home. That is totally uanapostolic and innovative.

 

[Wandile]

1. The Oriental Orthodox, as I’m sure you know, do not acknowledge Chalcedon as authoritative, at least not unequivocally.

How do EO justify Chalcedon to the OO since the EO believe that councils must be received by the wider church for them to become Ecumenical or authoritative? Seeing as the EO rejected Florence in the same manner that the OO rejected Chalcedon.

I’m curious …

 

[Vonsalza]

A question based largely on ignorance of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is united in faith. The different jurisdictions in the United States and other missionary countries is a historical happenstance that has been explained here many times.

I think that’s a bit presumptuous.

While there is unity in Orthodoxy, there is also a little conflict that is reminiscent of general Latin-Greek Church relations of the 6th-9th centuries. This exists between the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both are intimately aware of the fact that while Seat in Constantinople inherited the current “primus inter pares” when it denied the Roman bishop, more Orthodox are Russian than all other Orthodox combined. To say that this does not generate a little strain among the Patriarchs is less than truthful.

And the “American Problem” is one that severely damages the success of Orthodoxy in the US, from both written, in-house Orthodox critique and personal experience.
When the Greek Orthodox Church holds a Greek Festival, it is doing so for a Church that is largely Greek only in name. The one I considered joining in my rejection of Protestantism had very few ethnically Greek families.

There needs to be an American Orthodox Church. The Russian Church tried to take some very concrete steps toward this, but this was heavily resisted by the other seats. Why? Many reasons, but largely because they didn’t want the American financial patronage being sent to the home seats to dry-up. This behavior keeps Orthodoxy in America tied down under the label of an “immigrant church”, despite the fact that many, if not most American Orthodox Christians are neither Orthodox immigrants nor descended directly from the like (now with the rise of disaffected Protestants).

 

[exnihilo]

That was the council of Florence, early in the XV century. The Byzantine emperor, John VIII, persuaded the patriarch of Constantinople. Joseph II, to agree with Rome, eager to garner military support from Western Europe against the Turks. Given the situation of extreme duress, it can hardly be said that the Byzantine legates acted freely and consciously. Regardless, led by St. Mark of Ephesus, the only Byzantine legate to refuse to sign the acts of the council, the Byzantine faithful rejected it. And the rest is history…

I wouldn’t say they acted under duress. They may well have had an incentive to concede points in hopes of military support. But if they were willing to do so that doesn’t cast the Eastern Bishops in a positive light.

 

[Vonsalza]

Until the Crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople in 1204, the events of 1054 were ignored by the people as an episcopal squabble. But the sacking made the split loud and clear and personal, regrettably cementing the mistrust and coldness between both sides to this day.

I agree fully that the largely Venetian sack of the city “moved the needle” more than anything else. The city should have been protected from the Doge and anyone else involved by threat of excommunication as had occurred at Zara (sp?).

I do, however, give a small nod to the notion that the last of the “cement” was poured by their new Ottoman masters when those encountered frustratingly unmovable Catholic (namely Austrian) resistance. “Denounce them as ‘un-Christian’ or we’ll ‘denounce’ you (with a sword)”.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Any binding that the Pope does is done with his brother bishops and the Church at large, not “single handedly.” There have been two times in history that the Pope has done this, and both times the Pope shifted through the views of a large variety of bishops and theologians before he acted.

The Fathers have taught that that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and this is not understood by Latin Christians (as was made clear in the Council of Florence) to mean that the Father is not the source of all deity.

I can see where you might be coming from regarding the former, but the latter view is almost always based on a misunderstanding of the Latin understanding of the filioque, which isn’t to say that such a misunderstanding is culpable, but nevertheless it is a misunderstanding.

Christi pax.

1. Vatican I stated that papal declarations on dogma meeting infallibility are “irreformable of themselves” meaning no other office has any required (name removed by moderator)ut into them. It has also been made clear since Vatican I that the pope has no “duty” to consult other bishops although he may choose to do so, and even if the pope had such a duty, Orthodoxy views the authority of bishops as greater than that of being “consultants”.
2. Lateran IV said the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I wouldn’t say they acted under duress. They may well have had an incentive to concede points in hopes of military support. But if they were willing to do so that doesn’t cast the Eastern Bishops in a positive light.

Here is how secular medieval scholar RW Southern, a non-Orthodox with no apparent axe to grind, characterized the conclusion of Florence: “In the end, in 1439, the Greek delegates of Florence, led by their emperor and weakened by deaths, desertions, and sheer fatigue, agreed to submit… Opinions about this agreement and the way in which it was obtained will perhaps always differ. But it is impossible not to feel indignation at the spectacle of western Christians offering to those of the East a salvation which they were unable to provide, in return for a submission the Greeks could not conscientiously make.” Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, p 88.

In East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church, this is how Anglican church history scholar, the late Henry Chadwick, describes the thoughts of George Scholarios, a pro-unionist Greek scholar at the Council: “After the Florence union was signed, Scholarios regretted his role in its making; perhaps he had come to realize the profound misgivings of the Greek bishops who had voluntarily singed their assent. He realized the Greeks had only accepted the union under political pressure from the emperor and his desire to save his city.” p. 270.

As to not seeing the Eastern bishops who signed “in a positive light”, perhaps that is justified. Not everyone has the constitution of a Mark of Ephesus, or a St. Thomas More. Regardless, the moral character of the signatory Eastern bishops isn’t the question here, the free nature of the assent to the Florentine decree is.

 

[twf]

A question based largely on ignorance of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is united in faith. The different jurisdictions in the United States and other missionary countries is a historical happenstance that has been explained here many times.

I think it’s a very valid question. If I were to reject the primacy of Rome, who would I go to: Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy? There are two completely distinct communions both of which use the term Orthodox…both with apostolic succession.

 

[Augustine]

How do EO justify Chalcedon to the OO since the EO believe that councils must be received by the wider church for them to become Ecumenical or authoritative? Seeing as the EO rejected Florence in the same manner that the OO rejected Chalcedon.

Not in the same manner, no. Chalcedon anathematized Nestorius, who, with a group of supporters, relocated to Persia, which, a century or so later, formed the Churches now known as Oriental Orthodox. In other words, it was a heretical group already away from the Church, whose reception of the council was never expected.

 

[Augustine]

It’s actually a good question as there are Eastern Orthodox and Oriental orthodox

The Oriental Orthodox was the church formed by the group condemned by Chalcedon about a century after it. In other words, a church formed by a group of excommunicated heretics is not exactly orthodox.

 

[Augustine]

I think it’s a very valid question. If I were to reject the primacy of Rome, who would I go to: Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy? There are two completely distinct communions both of which use the term Orthodox…both with apostolic succession.

The Oriental Orthodox have a defective notion of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Church have a defective communion between each other. The former issue is more serious than the latter.

 

[Wandile]

The Oriental Orthodox was the church formed by the group condemned by Chalcedon about a century after it. In other words, a church formed by a group of excommunicated heretics is not exactly orthodox.

I know who the OO are. They are not heretics at all they hold to the theology of St Cyril which is the theology of the third Ecumenical council. They were misunderstood and thought to be Eutychian just as they misunderstood the Chalcedonians and thought them to the Nestorian. Hence the recent comment declaration between Rome and the Copts affirming we have the same faith in the hypostatic union of Christ.

 

[Wandile]

Not in the same manner, no. Chalcedon anathematized Nestorius, who, with a group of supporters, relocated to Persia, which, a century or so later, formed the Churches now known as Oriental Orthodox. In other words, it was a heretical group already away from the Church, whose reception of the council was never expected.

Actually Chalcedon anathematised Etyches and Ephesus was the council that dealt with Nestorius properly. Both parties going into the Chalcedon accepted the condemnation of Nestorius. They were full members of the church going into Chalcedon yet a huge portion of the church rejected Chalcedon after the council ended which formed the OO. The reason why it is rejected is immaterial (the reason is they thought Chalcedon was Nestorian and didn’t match up with the theology of St Cyril).

So if reception of the whol church is a prerequisite for a council to become Ecumenical and this is why Florence isn’t Ecumenical in the EO eyes, how can they equally go and say Chalcedon is Ecumenical when it wasn’t accepted by the whole church either?

FYI the schism between OO and chalcedonians didn’t materialize until after a few decades afte the council meaning for a a good period of time a huge portion of the church rejected the council.